Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2900 ..

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

The real world is at the mercy of Newtonian physics, such as the laws of gravity. It also turns on human nature, which the very best legislation in the world is unable to change. But Mr Corbell has an ill-defined and confused philosophy that will somehow overcome human nature. I quote from something the minister said in estimates. This underpins his approach to the planning system:

To put it crudely, a private land developer is going to pretty much work strictly to the letter of the law in delivering the estate. They're going to look at what they can and can't do, and they're going to pretty much push the envelope and make sure everything they're doing is within the strict letter of the law of subdivision design controls.

That is fair enough. This is what the magical government department will do:

A government land development agency will be required to work in a strong and robust manner in relation to its financial management and delivery of projects, but it will also have regard to other broader policy settings which the government may require of it in effective delivery of integrated open space, effective streetscapes and so on. It's that added extra which a government land development agency can deliver because it's conscious not only of the strict financial outcomes it's trying to achieve but also the broader social imperatives-

DURD revisited-

of the government that add an extra level of capacity in delivering quality on the ground.

This is Simon Corbell's new magic pudding. There is a certain magic element here which no-one, including the minister, has yet been able to define. What is the magic element that enables a government agency observing the same fiscal structures to achieve a qualitatively superior outcome? What is the mysterious added extra, Minister? Do you think you might be able to tell us before we vote on this budget and then finally on your bills to implement this?

It is akin to that certain amorphous something that they also like to talk about: sustainability. We always talk about sustainability. Everyone in this place talks about sustainability, but very few people do very much about it. The sustainable future of this city depends upon quite significantly consolidating development and encouraging urban infill. Everyone in this place talks about how important it is. Ms Tucker talks about it all the time, but when you come to a proposal that proposal is comprehensively knocked on the head every time.

I would like members of this place to tell me and to tell the people of Canberra how they can have their cake and eat it too, how they can have sustainability, how they can have urban consolidation. Every time someone suggests it, it is not quite right. There is a certain magic something missing.

The planning policies Mr Corbell has espoused so far work against consolidation. Yet he dares to bask in an aura of a sustainable utopia that is just around the corner. This government is very fond of verbiage and it masters buzz words all the time. Like the Whitlam government before them, they will bankrupt this town if they are allowed to

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .